Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SPECIAL AREAS (TRANSFERENCE).

Mr. E. DUNN: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered recommendation 16, page 163, of the recent report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas; whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt that recommendation and enable numbers of older men and their families to be transferred, from the Special Areas to cottage homesteads in more prosperous districts; and, if so, to what extent?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): Yes, Sir. As I stated in last Tuesday's Debate, it has been decided to initiate an experiment on these lines. A beginning will be made with schemes for 250 families, and the organisation to be set up by the Land Settlement Association will make possible an immediate extension of the programme if these first schemes are successful.

Mr. DUNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this programme might not be made one of 2,500 instead of only 250?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member will understand that this is an experiment.

Mr. KELLY: Is this to be confined to one part of the country, or is it to be spread out over various places throughout the country?

Mr. BROWN: This is a question of an experiment in family settlement. Perhaps the hon. Member would put his question down.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: When are the Government going to stop tinkering with this problem, and tackle it in a proper fashion? Is it not dealing with the

matter in a haphazard fashion to be providing for 250 individuals out of over 1,000,000? The thing is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. BROWN: I have said that this is only an experiment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In cases where young men and women have been recruited, say, from South Wales to the North-East Coast or Birmingham, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements so that parents may follow a son or daughter without the application of the means test?

Mr. BROWN: We have already made arrangements for the removal of families.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all cases where the family means test applies, it prevents the other members of the family from following these young people?

Mr. BROWN: I understand that the family means test is a test of the family need.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in formulating these schemes, consider the semi-depressed areas, some parts of which are as bad as the depressed areas?

Mr. BROWN: That was discussed in the Debate two days ago, when I gave an indication about it.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: What was the indication?

Mr. BROWN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will turn up the OFFICIAL REPORT and read it.

BENEFIT PAYMENT (CHRISTMAS).

Mr. ROWSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for unemployment benefit to be paid out to the unemployed on Wednesday, 23rd December, instead of Thursday, 24th December, this year?

Mr. E. BROWN: It will not be possible to do this in all cases, but it will be done as far as is practicable.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Will the Minister take steps to avoid the queueing which usually takes place at this time of year; and will he also reconsider his previous answer with regard to increasing the benefit to the unemployed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question or answer.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. R. GIBSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the assistance drawn by Neil Cannie, 160, Rankine Street, Greenock, from the Employment Exchange has been reduced from 17s. per week to 9s. per week; and whether this reduction is due to the application of the new regulations, or, if not, on what grounds it was made?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that the reduction in the allowance was not a consequence of the new regulations, but was due to a change in the circumstances of the household.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the area officers have been notified that they can make these reductions immediately and whether they have any power to do so?

Mr. BROWN: I am not aware that any reduction has taken place.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Is the Minister aware that in this case, in the papers which were issued, the impression was given that the new regulations were being applied so as to produce reductions?

Mr. BROWN: I am not aware of that. The facts are otherwise.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Unemployment Assistance Board is rejecting the claims for unemployment allowance made by single men in cases where such men have left their homes because, by the operation of the household means test, they have been given nil determination, and have subsequently left their homes and have taken lodgings elsewhere; and whether he proposes to take steps to revise the regulations in this respect so as to avoid producing a number of vagabonds driven from home by the means test and deprived of any form of public assistance?

Mr. BROWN: I am informed that cases occasionally arise in which as a merely colourable arrangement a single man leaves or purports to leave his home for the purpose of obtaining an allowance at a higher rate than would otherwise be payable, and that in such cases the

Board's officer may make an assessment on the basis that the applicant's home is still in fact open to him and that he is constructively a member of it. If in any instance the facts on which the officer has proceeded are in doubt or dispute, it is open to the aggrieved applicant to exercise his right of appeal under the Act.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Am I to understand that the decision as to whether a single man is to stay at home or is to leave his home, is not to be in his own individual right but is to be a decision of the Unemployment Assistance Board; and is not this an infringement of the rights of the working-man?

Mr. BROWN: I said that these are cases where steps are taken to prevent collusive action.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what regulation the Unemployment Assistance Board refuses to give a man unemployment assistance after he has left home?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will put that question down I will give him a detailed answer?

Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has answered to the effect that this has happened regularly, and surely as he is Minister of Labour and as this is an exceptional case he will know that there is no regulation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] Will the Minister answer that point?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Gentleman says that I said that this happened regularly, but I said no such thing. I have said that cases occasionally arise. There have been a few, but there are rights of appeal, and they are decided in the light of the regulations.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Arising out of the Minister's second reply, in which he said that the fact that the allowances are being denied to these men is due to collusive action, may I ask whether that statement is based upon the facts in each case? If that is not the case, and I know it is not, will the Minister withdraw that insult to working men?

Mr. BROWN: I have nothing to withdraw. I said there were occasional cases of colourable arrangements.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Minister is entitled to use words which are insulting to applicants without any evidence of fact at all? Further, may I, in view not only of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply but also in view of the reflection cast upon my constituents, give notice that I will raise this matter on the first opportunity?

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is very unusual to pursue a question when notice has been given of an hon. Member's intention to raise it on a future occasion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I understood that I had been called by you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Taylor.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: asked the Minister of Labour the nature of the arrangements made with regard to the rent allowance by the various advisory committees in Northumberland?

Mr. BROWN: I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the recommendations for the adjustment of allowances in respect of rent which have been made by the four advisory committees whose districts includes parts of the geographical county of Northumberland. The committees have been informed that the board have instructed their local officers to give effect to the recommendations in applying the new Regulations.

Following is the Statement:

A. Each of the four Advisory Committees has recommended that for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2) (a) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1936, the amounts ascertained under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be increased as follows:

Where the net rent is greater than one-quarter of the total of the scale rates of all members of the household the amount ascertained as aforesaid

should be increased by the lesser of the two following sums:

(a) the amount by which the net rent is greater than one-quarter of the scale rates;
(b) the difference between one-quarter and one-third of the scale rates.

Note.—In considering cases in which the rent paid may be in excess of one-third of the scale rates of the household the board's officers have been instructed to deal with each case on its merits and in appropriate cases to make such further adjustments as the circumstances may justify.

B. The Committees' recommendations for the adjustment of allowances where the net rent is less than one-quarter of the total scale rates of all members of the household are as follows:

(a)Newcastle and District Advisory Committee.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference between the net rent and one-quarter of the scale rates exceeds 1s. 6d.;

(b)Tynemouth, Wallsend and District Advisory Committee.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference between the net rent and one-quarter of the scale rates exceeds 2s.;

(c)Blaydon, Hexham and District Advisory Committee.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference between the net rent and one-quarter of the scale rates exceeds 2s. 6d., provided that in the case of an applicant living under predominantly rural conditions a reduction should be made to the extent that the net rent is less than one-quarter of the scale rates;

(d)North - East Northumberland Advisory Committee.

The amounts ascertained under subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule should be decreased if, and to the extent that, the difference between the net rent and one-quarter of the


scale rates exceeds 3s., provided that in the case of an applicant living in a rent free house no deduction in respect of rent should be made in excess of 5s.

Mr. LAWSON: asked the Minister of Labour how many applicants' claims have been received by the Unemployment Assistance Board; and whether he can state the numbers who have received increases and have suffered decreases, respectively?

Mr. BROWN: The re-assessment of cases under the new Regulations has not yet been completed. Up to date reports relating to 504,526 cases so re-assessed have been received by the board. In about 395,000 of these cases there has been no change of circumstances since the last assessment prior to the coming into operation of the new Regulations, and in rather more than one-third of these the rates of payment have been increased while in the remainder they remain unchanged. In the balance of about 109,000 cases there has been some change of circumstances and there is therefore no direct comparison of the effect of the new Regulations; but the statistics received indicate that the proportion of these in which the rate of payment was increased as compared with that which would have been made previously was not less than one-third. No reductions have yet been made on account of the new Regulations.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the Minister tell us what proportion would have received a decrease if the Regulations had been applied?

Mr. BROWN: Not at the moment until the review is completed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister can tell us the number who were to receive an increase, and why cannot he tell us the number who would have received a decrease if the Regulations had been in force?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that that depends upon how they are applied over a period of 18 months by 126 local advisory committees.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Do the figures as to the proportionate decrease include the nil determinations?

Mr. BROWN: The figures I have given refer to the cases in which payments were made.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has stated shows that there has only been a decrease where there has been a change of circumstance, and can he say whether there have been any decreases apart from change of circumstances?

Mr. BROWN: My understanding is that there has been none on account of the new Regulations.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Minister of Labour whether the scale of assistance laid down in the regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board has taken into account the cost of a minimum diet necessary for health, as estimated by the nutrition committee of the British Medical Association or by any other scientific authority, and the cost of other primary needs; and, if not, upon what other considerations has the scale been fixed?

Mr. BROWN: I am satisfied that in drafting the Regulations which have recently come into force with the approval of this House the Unemployment Assistance Board had regard to the considerations referred to by the hon. Member.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the actual determination falls short of minimum subsistence needs as estimated, whether by the British Medical Association or by any other authorities, by amounts which become more and more substantial according to the number in the family and in what sense, therefore, have these estimates been considered?

Mr. BROWN: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for War has decided to change the diet in the Army and will he change the diet out of the Army?

TRAINEES.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken by his Department to find employment for men from the Special Areas who have satisfactorily completed a course at the instructional centre and are physically capable of work, seeing that in 1935 only 20 per cent. and this year about 40 per cent have been placed in employment?

Mr. E. BROWN: There has as the hon. Gentleman indicates been a welcome increase in the percentages of men placed after a course of training at instructional centres. I have good hopes that a further increase may result from certain developments which I am instituting to meet the greater opportunities now made available by the general improvement in the industrial situation. At the same time I am in consultation with some of my colleagues with a view to obtaining a full share of the employment on works under their control for men from the centres.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether at these instructional centres there are any courses of instruction in agriculture?

Mr. BROWN: An attempt was made to give agricultural training, but I regret to say that it was not wholly successful.

MINERS (AGRICULTURAL TRAINING).

Captain DOWER: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the shortage of labour in the agricultural districts of Cumberland; and will he consider training unemployed miners in these districts who have little or no prospect of work;
(2) whether he will consider taking powers to compensate farmers in Cumberland who employ unemployed miners during their period of training by the difference between the rate of pay paid to youths and the rate of adult labour?

Mr. E. BROWN: Apart from purely seasonal requirements for short periods, I have no evidence of shortage of agricultural labour in these districts, but I shall be glad to consider any particulars which my hon. Friend may send to me.

Captain DOWER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that miners could be given work if farmers could only get assistance in the way of unskilled and other labour?

Mr. BROWN: The issue is not quite that. In Cumberland there are 318 agricultural workers registered as unemployed. The real trouble is that the work is seasonal, which is a different matter.

WEAVING AND MACHINE-KNITTING.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Minister of Labour the number of hands employed in the weaving industry in North-East Lancashire in 1929, 1931 and 1936, and the number of hands employed in the machine-knitting industry in the Leicester and Nottingham districts of the same years?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Statistics showing for individual industries the estimated numbers of insured persons, and the numbers of such persons recorded as unemployed, are ordinarily compiled only for administrative divisions, and figures relating to the estimated numbers insured are available only for the beginning of July of each year. In the cotton manufacturing industry the total number of insured persons, aged 14 to 64, in the present North-Western Division (including Lancashire, Cheshire, and the Glossop and New Mills districts of Derbyshire) at the beginning of July, 1936, was approximately 195,000, of whom 33,830 were recorded as unemployed at 22nd June. I regret that corresponding figures are not available for the manufacturing section of the cotton industry for the years 1929 and 1931.

In the hosiery manufacturing industry in the Midlands Division, which includes Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, and certain other counties, the estimated numbers of insured persons at the beginning of July in each of the years 1929, 1931 and 1936, and the numbers recorded as unemployed at a date towards the end of June in those years, were as shown below:

—
1929.
1931.
1936.


Estimated numbers insured—





Aged 16 to 64
75,000
78,950
81,300


Aged 14 and 15
—*
—*
9,570


Numbers of insured persons recorded as unemployed—





Aged 16 to 64
3,600
15,138
5,680


Aged 14 and 15
—*
—*
46


* Juveniles under 16 years of age were not insurable against unemployment prior to September, 1934.

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Minister of Labour the annual amount of contributions made to the Unemployment Insurance Fund since its establishment by employers, employés, and the State,

Statement showing the annual amount of contributions paid into the Unemployment Fund by employers, employed persons and the Exchequer respectively, and the annual sum paid in insurance benefit from the time the Fund was established up to 31st March, 1936.


Period (a).
Contributions.
Insurance Benefit (c).


Employers.
Employed Persons.
Defence Departments for discharged members of H.M. Forces.
Exchequer (b).





£000.
£000.
£000.
£000.
£000.


1913
…
…
811
811
—
378
208


1914
…
…
901
901
—
602
531


1915
…
…
825
825
—
547
419


1916
…
…
847
847
—
539
79


1917
…
…
1,350
1,350
—
746
34


1918
…
…
1,639
1,639
—
1,007
86


1919
…
…
1,436
1,436
—
994
153


1920
…
…
1,522
1,522
—
913
1,009


1921
…
…
4,976
4,976
1,357
2,169
34,118


1922
…
…
16,069
14,345
820
11,058
52,871


1923
…
…
17,667
15,900
444
12,166
41,909


1924
…
…
19,291
17,362
273
13,185
35,994


1925
…
…
19,276
17,348
293
13,148
44,602


1926
…
…
17,763
15,787
319
12,911
43,685


July, 1926 to March, 1927.
10,800
9,450
255
7,955
38,691


1928
…
…
16,412
14,360
279
12,025
36,474


1929
…
…
16,045
14,039
369
11,758
46,749


1930
…
…
16,258
14,226
371
15,426
42,254


1931
…
…
15,610
13,659
395
14,832
73,020


1932
…
…
17,068
16,101
417
16,793
80,144


1933
…
…
19,003
19,003
358
19,182
54,150


1934
…
…
19,604
19,604
290
19,749
40,170


1935
…
…
20,825
20,825
446
21,048
43,785


1936
…
…
21,638
21,638
519
21,897
42,701


(a) Insurance years (ending July) to 1926; financial years (ending 31st March) from 1st April 1927.


(b) In addition the following contributions were paid by the Exchequer by way of deficiency grant:—1931-32, £444,577; 1932-33, £6,363,377.


(c) Excludes transitional benefit paid in respect of benefit years commencing after 31st March, 1929, transitional payments and unemployment allowances, the cost of which was repaid to the Unemployment Fund by the Exchequer.

SEASONAL WORKERS.

Dr. LEECH: asked the Minister of Labour the nature of the obstacles which his Department is encountering in trying to transfer men from the distressed areas in order that they may obtain seasonal or continuous employment in North Norfolk and South Lincolnshire; and will he explain what steps he is taking to abolish these obstacles so that public opinion in the distressed areas

respectively, and the annual sum paid in benefit during the same period?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

may assist him to combat the obstruction to his efforts to transfer unemployed men into employment?

Mr. E. BROWN: The obstacles to which I referred in my reply of 3rd December related to employment in seasonal work. The work is normally paid for on, a piece-work basis and, especially if the weather is bad, the earnings of men from the depressed areas, who are, in general, unused to


work on the land, are low. Accommodation is often difficult to obtain and, in some cases, is not of a high standard. With regard to the latter part of the question, my hon. Friend will appreciate that these are matters which I have no power to control.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what obstacles there are to selecting suitable unemployed men and training them for aerodrome work on the East Coast, so that they can be transferred into employment?

Mr. BROWN: We did attempt to get some training for agricultural work, but it was a comparative failure. It is simpler to train men for industrial work. When you have a matter of purely seasonal work paid by piece rates, the situation becomes very difficult from the point of view of labour.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that during the past three years there were 78,000 fewer agricultural workers employed than before, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if the work is really available, there are plenty of men waiting for it.

Mr. BROWN: I cannot accept that. I have dealt with the question addressed to me.

DURHAM.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of money paid from the Unemployment Insurance Fund and by the Unemployment Assistance Board and by the public assistance committees to unemployed persons in the county of Durham since the year 1922, up to the latest available date?

Mr. E. BROWN: Statistics of payments of unemployment benefit, transitional payments and unemployment allowances in the county of Durham in the years 1931 to 1935 inclusive were given in statements circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 4th February, 1936, and 29th May, 1936, in reply to questions by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Springs (Mr.W. Joseph Stewart). I am having extracted information relating to the years 1922 to 1930 and the year 1936, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible. Questions relating to payments of poor relief by public

assistance committees should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE (MESSRS COLVILLES, LIMITED).

Mr. WALKER: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a serious dispute has broken out at three of the steelworks belonging to Messrs. Colvilles, Limited, namely, Blochairn, Dalzell, and Hallside, involving 6,000 men and holding up important shipbuilding and munition work, and that it has arisen through the refusal of the company to grant recognition of the union of which the clerical employées are members; and, in view of the protection afforded to this company under the Finance Act, what steps he is taking to bring the dispute to a speedy termination?

Mr. E. BROWN: I understand that about 150 clerks have stopped work but that no shipbuilding or munitions work has so far been affected. As I understand that certain proposals for settlement are under consideration, I do not think I ought to make further comment on the position.

Mr. WALKER: Is the Minister aware that in these proposals there is a clause which states that the union representing the men, namely, the National Union of Clerks, shall not be recognised by the employers?

Mr. BROWN: I prefer not to make any comment on that.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Member of the Government, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is associated with this firm?

Mr. HARDIE: Since these steel works have been in this difficulty has the Ministry of Labour sought to bring about ordinary conditions between employers and employées by meeting representatives of the union?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows quite well that the Department always seeks the right moment for intervention. What we want to do is to get a settlement.

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to state how many workers there are in Britain who get six or more days holiday in the year with pay, including civil servants, municipal employées, and those in the employ of private firms?

Mr. E. BROWN: The number of wage-earners covered by collective agreements between organisations of employers and workpeople providing for annual holidays with pay is estimated to be about 1,500,000. In nearly all cases these agreements provide for at least six days annual holiday with pay, apart from public holidays, after a qualifying period of service. Particulars of these agreements, with a list of the industries covered, were given in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for April, 1936. I am not in possession of information as to the extent to which paid holidays are granted to wage-earners in industries not covered by such collective agreements, or as to the number of salaried workers whose conditions of service include annual holidays with pay.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Minister use his influence with the Government to see that, as the heavy industries, the key industries of this country, do not have holidays with pay, legislation is introduced to provide for them?

Mr. BROWN: The House has given a Second Reading to a Bill on this subject, and it will soon be considered in Committee.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that those firms which are threatened with insolvency are provided with the money to pay for holidays?

METROPOLITAN POLICE (ACCIDENT ALLOWANCES).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of constables or officers of the Metropolitan Police Force who were involved in accidents and sustained injuries, fatal or otherwise, whilst on duty, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and what compassionate or compensatory allowances were made to the widows and/or children in fatal cases.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): In the year 1935—the latest period of 12 months for which figures are readily available—962 members of the Metropolitan Police Force were placed on the sick list as a result of injuries and accidents of all kinds incurred while on duty. In addition, two members of the force lost their lives in the course of duty. Under the provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the widows were each awarded a pension of £78 per annum, and in respect of four children (three in one case and one in the other) an annual allowance of £15 12s for each child was granted.

Mr. DAY: Is there any machinery by which the widows or the other representatives of the men concerned may appeal?

Mr. LLOYD: I should like notice of that question.

PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. MONTAGUE: asked the Home Secretary whether is is aware that the pay scales of several of the higher ranks in the prison service have been improved during the past year or so amounting to many hundreds of pounds; that the uniform staff rates of pay stand practically the same as they did for about 15 years; that, on the recent consolidation or revision of pay, no practical increase was made in the pay rates of the uniform staff and that the officers had to calculate their pay for a year ahead to find out whether they would gain or lose; and whether he proposes to have the rates of pay reviewed?

Mr. LLOYD: The scales of pay of subordinate officers in the prison service were revised a year ago, and the effect of the new scales was to improve the immediate position of many and the prospects of all such officers. The new scales were settled after consultation with the Prison Officers' Representative Board, and my right hon. Friend knows of no grounds on which he would be justified in reopening the question at this date. After the scales for the subordinate ranks had been revised, some changes were made in the scales of pay of governors and medical officers. These changes were mainly adjustments involving comparatively small sums, and in no scale was there an increase of as much as £100.

Mr. MONTAGUE: asked the Home Secretary whether the general associations of Civil Service are recognised trade unions; if not, what are the limitations; whether the representative board for the prison staff operates in a similar manner to the above-mentioned associations; and why the prison officers' representative board are barred from placing a case before the industrial court or the Civil Service arbitration tribunal?

Mr. LLOYD: The question whether any association of civil servants is entitled to recognition as representing a particular grade depends on the extent of its membership among that grade. In so far as the question relates to prison staffs, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. McEntee) on 12th November last.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the necessity for improved and increased accommodation in voluntary and non-provided schools, he will state what steps his Department are taking to assist such rebuilding and necessary alterations?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would remind the hon. Member that the Education Act, 1936, empowers local education authorities to make grants to voluntary bodies of 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the cost of improving existing provision for senior children and of building new schools for such children. The expenditure of local education authorities in making such grants will be eligible for recognition for grant from the board on the same terms as expenditure upon council school buildings.

Mr. DAY: Can the Minister say whether he has had many applications for more assistance in this matter, and whether they have received attention?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

MILK IN SCHOOLS SCHEME.

Mr. W. ROBERTS: asked the President of the Board of Education whether any children in schools are being supplied with preserved instead of fresh milk?

Mr. STANLEY: It is estimated that about five per cent. of the children receiving milk in the schools are supplied with preserved milk in some form or another. Preserved milk is not provided under the milk-in-schools scheme.

Mr. ROBERTS: In view of the fact that some types of preserved milk have a much lower food value than fresh milk, will the Minister draw the attention of the local authorities concerned to that fact?

Mr. STANLEY: In the great majority of the cases in which preserved milk is supplied it is as the result of a voluntary arrangement carried on by the teachers. In the few cases where it is supplied by local authorities the Board try actively to discourage them, provided there are supplies of fresh milk available.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Minister see to it that, unless special circumstances arise, nothing but fresh milk is supplied to the schools, because we have adequate supplies of fresh milk at the moment, and in many cases producers do not know what to do with it?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Minister impress upon the Minister of Agriculture that it would be better to let the milk go to the children than to the manufacturers?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that there is very little fresh milk at all in the country?

INFANTS' DEPARTMENTS.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the President of the Board of Education how many separate infants' departments have been amalgamated with other departments during 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936; how many of these amalgamated departments are in charge of men head-teachers; and whether amalgamations of this nature are in line with the policy of the board?

Mr. STANLEY: The information for which the hon. Member asks will take a little time to collect, but I will send it to him as soon as it is ready.

SCHOOL MEALS.

26. Mr. JENKINS: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children now receiving school meals in the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth and also in the borough of Merthyr Tydfil?

Local Education Authority.
*October, 1936.


Total number of individual children fed free.
Number of children receiving.


†Solid meals only.
†Milk only.
†Solid meals and milk.


Glamorgan
…
6,813
—
6,813
—


Monmouth
…
4,074
3,283
665
126


Merthyr Tydfil
…
3,768
660
3,108
—


* This is the latest month for which figures are available.


† These figures refer only to children receiving solid meals or milk free of charge.

ANCIENT COTTAGES (PRESERVATION).

Mr. HANNAH: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the copy sent to him of the recent protest by the Society for the Preservation of Rural England against the unnecessary destruction of old buildings; and whether he will call the attention of all local authorities to the need for reconditioning, instead of destroying, ancient cottages of aesthetic value whenever it is possible to make them sanitary and convenient dwellings?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the November report of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, in which reference is made to the importance both to local authorities and to cottage owners of securing adequate technical advice before deciding whether an unfit cottage, which is of architectural, historic or artistic merit, cannot be made fit for habitation. I have frequently called the attention of local authorities to the need for taking all practicable steps to secure the reconditioning of cottages which can be made fit for habitation, and I have recently issued a circular emphasising the importance of giving further publicity to the grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts available for reconditioning agricultural cottages.

Mr. STANLEY: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Members's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

CASUAL WARDS (CHILDREN).

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the provision under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, making it an offence for a person habitually to wander from place to place with any child of school age who is not totally exempted from school attendance or unable to receive it, he can state the number of such children who have been brought into casual wards during the last year for which statistics are available?

Sir K. WOOD: 229 children between the ages of five and 14 years were admitted to casual wards in England and Wales during the year ended 31st March, 1936. I have no information to show how many of these children were totally exempted from school attendance.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: Have any prosecutions taken place during the last 12 months against people for dragging young children through the country without any adequate means of education or supervision?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on the matter, I will give him the figures. I can tell him that action is being taken in many directions.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

WORKING CLASS.

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: asked the Minister of Health whether, during the last year for which statistics


are available, any cases have been brought to his notice in which the housing needs of the working-class population are not being wholly met by the activities of private enterprise; whether in these cases the local authorities have been asked to provide the required houses themselves; and whether he can give the names of such authorities?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir, and I have during the past year sanctioned loans for the erection of some 14,000 houses in the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend. I will send him a list of the authorities concerned.

Mr. LEVY: Is the Minister satisfied that adequate water supplies are being passed on the plans, as part of the duty of the local authorities?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter. If my hon. Friend will put down a question upon it, I will answer it.

DERELICT INDUSTRIAL PREMISES.

Mr. BURKE: asked the Minister of Health whether he will assist local authorities, in declining trade areas such as North-East Lancashire, to recondition those areas by granting them powers to demolish disused, unattractive, industrial premises, thus creating cheap cleared sites for attractive buildings, by making grants-in-aid, or by giving the authorities power to raise loans for such purposes?

Sir K. WOOD: I have received representations on this matter, but I am not in a position at present to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in his speech at the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill on Tuesday last.

Mr. BURKE: Is the Minister aware that the proposal in the question is being widely called for in Lancashire as a means of attracting new industries to the area, and will he therefore bring it to the notice of his colleague the Minister of Labour, so that in this legislation Lancashire might not be disappointed and might not feel that the Government have once again let them down?

Sir K. WOOD: I could not agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As a matter of fact, I myself have received several deputations on this matter, and my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Minister of Health what action, in addition to the Midwives Act, is being undertaken by his Department to reduce the large percentage of maternal mortality in the country?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the annual report for 1935 of the Chief Medical Officer of my Department, recently published, which contains, in the section relating to maternity and child welfare, a summary of the action taken by my Department both by way of investigation into this problem and by way of administrative action for the improvement of maternity services. Further measures it may be desirable to take will be reviewed when I have before me the report, now in course of preparation, of the special investigations recently made into maternal mortality in various parts of the country.

Mr. LUNN: Will copies of that document be available for Members of this House?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir; I shall make them available.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Minister take steps to impress upon local authorities the desirability of establishing, wherever possible, gynaecological clinics in order to reduce the rate of maternal mortality?

Sir K. WOOD: I will send the hon. Member a circular which has been issued in relation to that matter.

MIDWIVES.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Minister of Health what action is being taken by his Department to see that a fully qualified midwife is at hand for every expectant mother in the country?

Sir K. WOOD: Each local supervising authority has been sent a circular, explaining the provisions of the Act and containing suggestions and advice as to how the objects of the Act can best be secured. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the circular. Under the Act, local authorities are required to submit their proposals to me by the end of January next, and to carry them into effect not later than the end of July next.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Minister of Health whether local authorities and voluntary associations have been invited to co-operate in implementing the Midwives Act; and how far definite action is being undertaken by them?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Consultations between the bodies referred to, as the Act requires, are, I am informed, now in progress throughout the country.

Mr. RATHBONE: Is the Minister's Department giving as much encouragement as possible to these local and voluntary associations, which are professing themselves willing to co-operate in the working of the Act?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that many of them are in touch with us.

Sir JOHN MELLOR: Will the Minister give favourable consideration to the applications of those non-county boroughs which are qualified and desire to be entrusted with the administration of their own maternity services?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter.

MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (BOARD OF CONTROL).

Mr. KELLY: asked the Minister of Health the number of people who compose the Board of Control; and whether they visit in each year all the mental hospitals and colonies for mental defectives, particularly those which are privately owned and conducted for profit?

Sir K. WOOD: The Board of Control consists of the Chairman and four other members, styled Senior Commissioners. For the purposes of the work of visitation and inspection, the board are assisted by 12 commissioners and four inspectors. All institutions (including mental hospitals) accommodating patients under the provisions of the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890–1930, and all institutions (including colonies for mental defectives) accommodating patients under the provisions of the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913–1927, are visited in each year, whether or not they are privately owned and conducted for profit.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give particulars of what cinematograph films have been made during the last 12 months and are being made at the present time in which Government property and/or material has been or is being used; and what payment, if any, is made to the personnel of the Services for parts taken in these film productions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The detailed information asked for is not readily obtainable, but I will communicate it to the hon. Member when it is available.

Mr. DAY: Is it not possible for the Minister to say what payment is made to the personnel of the Services for the work they do?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that those who are employed in the Army receive more pay than those who are employed in the Navy?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member's question involves a good deal of research, and until that research is completed, I cannot give the detailed information.

IMPORT DUTIES (MACHINERY).

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the policy of his Department in regard to the duty payable on the re-importation of machinery, or machinery parts, into this country where such machinery has had to be returned to the country of origin owing to faulty or incorrect construction?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If my Noble Friend refers to machinery and machinery parts of foreign origin, the position is that under the law, unless the goods are covered by a licence for duty-free admission, duty is chargeable, on their re-importation into this country after previous importation and exportation for repair, only on the amount of the increase in the value attributable to the repairs, provided that the repairs have not changed the form or character of the goods.

URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICTS (ALTERATION OF AREAS).

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state, by administrative counties, the names of the new urban and rural districts which have been formed in the last year or will shortly be formed; the names of those which have been abolished for the same periods; and the dates of formation or abolition?

List of (a) new urban and rural districts which have been formed and (b) those which have been abolished, since the 1st January, 1936, including, in addition, those which will be formed or abolished on 1st April, 1937.


Administrative County.
New Districts.
Abolished Districts.
Date of formation or abolition.


Chester
Longdendale U.D.
Buglawton U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Compstall U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Handforth U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Hollingworth U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Mottram-in-Longdendale U.D.





Tarporley U.D.





Yeardsley - cum - Whaley U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Malpas R.D.



Derby
Whaley Bridge U.D.
—
1st April, 1936.


Durham
Boldon U.D.
South Shields R.D.
1st April, 1936.



Consett U.D.
Annfield Plain U.D.
1st April, 1937.



Crook and Willington U.D.
Benfieldside U.D.
1st April, 1937.



Houghton-le Spring U.D.
Consett U.D.
1st April, 1937.



Stanley U.D.
Crook U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Houghton-le-Spring U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Leadgate U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Stanhope U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Stanley U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Tanfield U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Willington U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Auckland R D.
1st April, 1937.




Hartlepool R.D.
1st April, 1937.




Houghton-le-Spring R.D.
1st April, 1937.


Essex
Thurrock U.D.
Grays Thurrock U.D.
1st April, 1936




Purfleet U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Tilbury U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Orsett R.D.
1st April, 1936.


Leicester
—
Hinckley R.D.
1st April, 1936.




Loughbrough R.D.
1st April, 1936.


Lincs. (Linsey)
—
Crowle U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Roxby-cum-Risby U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Winterton U.D.
1st April, 1936.




Sibsey R.D.
1st April, 1936.


Middlesex
—
Hampton U.D.
1st April, 1937




Hampton Wick U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Teddington U.D.
1st April, 1937.


Salop
—
Newport R.D.
1st April, 1936.

Sir K. WOOD: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the particulars in the OFFICIAL RETORT.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will these newly-formed authorities be functioning at the beginning of the New Year?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member will find his answer in the Schedule which I am circulating. I think it is at the beginning of April.

Following are the particulars:

Administrative County.
New Districts.
Abolished Districts.
Date of formation or abolition.


Yorks (West Riding).
—
Greasborough U.D.
1st April, 1936.



Colne Valley U.D.
Ardsley East and West U.D.
1st April, 1937.



Dearne U.D.
Barkisland U.D.
1st April, 1937.



Elland U.D.
Birkenshaw U.D.
1st April, 1937.



Guiseley U.D.
Birstall U.D.
1st April, 1937.



Queensbury and Shelf U.D.
Bolton-upon-Dearne U.D.
1st April, 1937.



Ripponden U.D.
Burley-in-Wharfedale U.D.
1st April, 1937.



New urban district consisting of Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd U.Ds. (name not yet decided)
Calverley U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Drighlington U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Elland U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Farsley U.D.
1st April, 1937.



New rural district consisting of Pateley Bridge and Ripon R.Ds (name not yet decided).
Gildersome U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Golcar U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Greetland U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Guiseley U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Hebden Bridge U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Hipperbolme U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Hunsworth U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Linthwaite U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Luddenden Foot U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Marsden U D.
1st April, 1937.




Methley U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Mytholmroyd U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Queensbury U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Rawdon U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Rishworth U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Scammonden U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Shelf U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Slaithwaite U. D.
1st April, 1937.




Southowram U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Soyland U D.
1st April, 1937.




Springhead U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Thurnscoe U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Yeadon U.D.
1st April, 1937.




Bishopthorpe R.D.
1st April, 1937.




Halifax R.D.
1st April, 1937.




Hunslet R.D.
1st April, 1937.




Pateley Bridge R.D.
1st April, 1937.




Ripon R.D.
1st April, 1937.


NOTE.—The following urban districts (not included above) were created Municipal Boroughs on the 1st November, 1936:—Cleethorpes U.D., Eastleigh U.D., Halesowen U.D., The Maldens and Coombe U.D., Scunthorpe and Frodingham U.D., Southall Norwood U.D. and Surbiton U.D.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

WINES (DUTY).

Mr. LEES-JONES: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the imposition of a higher excise duty on so-called British wines, which are manufactured solely from material of foreign origin?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I regret that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: In frameing his Budget, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the unfair com-

petition which is produced by the so-called foreign wines?

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORTS).

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the decision taken in 1909 to publish the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament as independent volumes, with separate indexes, was taken on grounds of economy or for other reasons not adduced before the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates in 1907; and whether he will consider the possibility, both on the grounds of economy


and convenience, of reverting to the earlier procedure?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As regards the first part of the question, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the relevant part of a summary of the conclusions arrived at by the Select Committee on Debates Reports, which was communicated to the Treasury at the time by your predecessor, Sir. With regard to the second part of the question, I am advised that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would in fact lead to considerably larger expense, and I regret that I am unable to recommend its adoption.

Following is the copy:

The Select Committee on Debates Reports, in considering the arrangements to be made in future for an OFFICIAL REPORT of Debates, directed their attention in the first instance to the time at which such reports should be issued and delivered. They came unanimously to the decision that the OFFICIAL REPORT of each day's Debates in the House should be issued on the following morning; and they are also of opinion that it should be perfectly feasible, with normal sittings of the House* for this "Daily Report" of the preceding day's Debates to be delivered by the first post in the morning. A letter was accordingly sent by their direction to the Treasury, conveying their emphatic expression of the importance which they attach to this being the starting-point of the future arrangements, and saying that they quite contemplated that, in order to carry out this object, it might be necessary for the reports of Debates in the House to be issued separately from those of the House of Lords, unless their Lordships should feel disposed to make arrangements which would admit of the reports of their Lordship's House being issued at the same time as that proposed for the reports of this House—in which case this Committee would gladly facilitate any arrangement securing this object. The Committee subsequently considered whether, with this arrangement for the early delivery of a Daily Report of the Commons Debates taken in conjunction with the arrangements made by the House of Lords for the reporting of Debates in that House, it would be feasible to con-

tinue a combined report of the Debates of both Houses. The Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords—Lord Onslow—was good enough to confer with the Committee, and, at his suggestion, Mr. Walter, the Official Reporter of the House of Lords, came and explained to the Committee the arrangements of the House of Lords as to the reporting of their Lordships' Debates. After hearing Mr. Walter the Committee came to the conclusion that the publication of, and the arrangements for the publication of, the Debates of this House (both in the daily reports and in bound volumes) must be quite distinct from those of the Lords reports.
* In explanation of this phrase the Committee consider that in case of a sitting prolonged beyond 11.30, the conclusion of the report of the sitting should be issued with the following day's report unless the copy be received before midnight.

CROWN LANDS (ARCHITECT).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Minister of Agriculture the name of the architect employed by the Commissioners of Crown Lands; and whether he possesses wide knowledge and experience of period architecture?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The architect employed by the Commissioners is Mr. S. D. Meadows, F.R.I.B.A., who is a highly qualified architect with wide experience, and has studied period architecture in many European countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SAVINGS BANK (OVERTIME).

Mr. VIANT: asked the Postmaster-General the amount of overtime worked by the staff employed at the Post Office Savings Bank Department, Kensington, during the two years prior to 30th November, 1936, and the number of persons affected?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): The amount of overtime performed by the staff of the Savings Bank Department during the 12 months ended 30th November, 1935, was 349,000 hours and during the next 12 months 467,000 hours. Of these amounts 293,000 and 414,000 hours


respectively were performed by clerical staff. Practically the whole staff, which numbers over 3,000, was affected. My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the importance of reducing overtime to a minimum, and every effort is being made to accelerate the recruitment of additional staff for the Savings Bank. Seventy-five additional officers have been recruited since 1st October, and the position should become progressively better as further recruits are obtained.

Mr. AMMON: Can the hon. Gentleman say at what rate recruits are being obtained; and is it not disgraceful that so much overtime should be worked when there are so many people unemployed?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: My hon. Friend has enough experience of this Department to know that we must have properly trained employés. We are making every effort to get the right type of persons, and are training them and putting them to work as quickly as possible.

SCALE PAYMENT SUB-OFFICES (EMOLUMENTS).

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Postmaster-General how many scale payment sub-post offices there are where the emoluments do not exceed £52 per annum?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: The number is approximately 6,500. Scale payment sub-offices are usually run in conjunction with a private business, and the Post Office emoluments are not, of course, intended to constitute the sole means of subsistence.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the indignant dissatisfaction that there is among sub-postmasters at the ridiculously inadequate remuneration that they receive for such responsible work as they have to undertake?

BACON (RETAIL PRICES).

Mr. BURKE: asked the President of the Board of Trade the average retail price per lb. of bacon on 1st October in the years 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The average retail price per lb. of bacon on the 1st October in each of the years 1932 to

1936, as recorded by the Ministry of Labour, was:

s.
d.


1932
0
10¾


1933
1
1¼


1934
1
2¼


1935
1
2


1936
1
2¾

It should be borne in mind that prices in the year 1932 were abnormally low.

Mr. BURKE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he has quoted reflect very strikingly the effect of his Department's policy on the consumer and on people in the grocery trade; and will he, therefore, as suggested by the Food Council, take steps to extend or modify the import scheme system, so that the supplies may be better?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know which are the worst and longest to-day, the answers or the questions.

INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS, CANADA.

Major MILNER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make it clear that the Independent Order of Foresters of Toronto, Canada, is in fact keeping all its legal obligations in this country in respect of policies issued since 1917?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I informed the right hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Western (Mr. Johnston) on 26th November, this society has, so far as I am aware, met its obligations in respect of all policies issued since 1917. I regret that owing to a clerical error this position was misstated in the answer given on 24th November to questions on the same subject.

Major MILNER: I am much obliged.

RENFREW AERODROME.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry is prepared to grant any assistance to the town council of the Royal Burgh of Renfrew for the extension of the Renfrew aerodrome, in view of the greatly increased volume of


aviation traffic in that district and the probability of its further increase on the occasion of the Empire Exhibition in Glasgow in 1938?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I regret that it would not be in accordance with present policy to grant financial assistance to a local authority for the purpose of extending its aerodrome.

Marquess of CLYDESDALE:: Has a reply been given to the local authority on that point?

GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND BELGIUM.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the staff conversations held between representatives of Great Britain, France and Belgium earlier in the year were for the purpose of giving information only; and whether any provisional technical arrangements for joint action in the event of unprovoked aggression were made?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member on 2nd December on this subject.

Mr. MANDER: As in that reply the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the latter part of the question, would he be good enough to do so now?

Mr. EDEN: I gave the House full information about these conversations at the end of May. There have been no conversations since that date, and therefore I have nothing more to add.

SPAIN

Mr. BROOKE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the cost to His Majesty's Government of the deliberations of the Committee for Non-intervention in Spain; and whether any report on the work of the committee will be published?

Mr.EDEN: The cost of the organization of the committee up to date is approximately £500, mainly for clerical service. Reports of the proceedings of the committee are issued to the Press

after each meeting, but the issue of a comprehensive report is a matter for the committee itself.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French guarantee of military support for Great Britain against an act of unprovoked aggression extends to the British Dominions and Colonies?

Mr. EDEN: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the assurance contained in the speech by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on 4th December, in which he declared that
all the forces of France by land, sea and air would be spontaneously and immediately used for the defence of Great Britain in the event of an unprovoked aggression.
That assurance is naturally greatly welcomed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Its terms are clearly limited, as were the guarantees given by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom under the Treaty of Locarno.

Mr. MANDER: Is the Irish Free State included in the guarantee?

Mr. EDEN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down. My impression is that no guarantee is given to this country by France under the Locarno Treaty.

Mr. BELLENGER: Does the statement made by the French Prime Minister supersede the terms of the Locarno Treaty?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir; that statement is wholly in accordance with the arrangements reached in March last.

ROYAL NAVY (PUNISHMENT, SUMMARY OFFENCES).

Mr. CHATER: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of naval ratings and Royal Marines who in the last 12 months have been punished by the civil courts for summary offences and, in addition, by the naval authorities; whether these cases are shown separately in the routine punishment returns; and whether officers punished by the civil courts are also punished by the naval authorities; and, if so, in what way?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Samuel Hoare): Cases where Naval penalties are imposed upon ratings after conviction by the Civil Power are not specially tabulated in the returns of summary punishments, and it would be a difficult matter to prepare the statistics for which the hon. Member asks. The system of Naval penalties after conviction by the Civil Power is laid down in King's Regulations, Article 598, to which I invite the hon. Member's attention. Arrests or convictions of officers are brought to the notice of the Naval authorities and the Admiralty, and disciplinary notice is taken of them by way of reprimand, imposition of half-pay or, in extreme cases, refusal to grant further employment.

PRISON ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. BENSON (for Mr. PRITT): asked the Home Secretary under what authority, and why, have small sums of money sent anonymously to prisoners been seized by the Prison Commission?

Mr. LLOYD: The Prison Rules provide that money may not be sent to a convicted prisoner without authority, and that, if sent without authority, it may be confiscated. Anyone who wishes to send money to a prisoner for a legitimate purpose without disclosing his name to the prisoner can do so through the Governor or the Prisoners' Aid Society, but it was found that money was being sent anonymously in circumstances which suggested that the purposes were illegitimate. In such circumstances the money is returned to the sender whenever possible, but, if the prisoner declines or is unable to name the sender and give an address, it is confiscated and is handed to the organisations which assist prisoners generally on release.

Mr. PRITT: asked the Home Secretary whether the standing orders at present in force relating to prisons date back in part over 60 years; and whether he will consider redrafting the whole of these orders with a view to bringing prison administration into conformity with modern ideas?

Mr. LLOYD: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. Prison Standing Orders were entirely revised and reissued in 1933. They are constantly under

review, and such further amendments are made from time to time as experience may show to be desirable.

Mr. BENSON: Is it not a fact that the zeal of the Prison Commissioners for reform is very badly hampered by the old-fashioned and obsolete structure of our prison system?

Miss WILKINSON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider asking his right hon. Friend to take note of the dress of female prisoners, the form of which perpetuates the ideas of 60 years ago?

Mr. MAXTON: Would it be possible for Members of the House to get a copy of these regulations in their present form?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes, Sir, but these Regulations are of great length; indeed I asked to be furnished with a copy to-day and I have a note here that the volume is too large to be sent in the despatch box.

DUTCH AIR LINER ACCIDENT, CROYDON.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make on the accident to the Dutch air liner which occurred near Croydon yesterday; and whether he is satisfied with the position of Croydon as an air port in view of the prevalence of fog in that district, the available ground space for the landing and taking off of heavy machines, and the present control of flying in foggy weather to and from that port?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that I have no information which I could usefully add to the full accounts which have been given of the sad fatality which occurred at Croydon yesterday morning, as the causes of the accident are still under investigation by the Inspector of Accidents. As regards the second part of the question, Croydon like all aerodromes in this country, is liable to fog conditions, but I must emphasise that the decision to take off is entirely within the discretion of the pilot of the aircraft, subject to the direction of traffic exercised by the Control Officer of the airport. As regards ground space, Croydon Aerodrome fully conforms to Air Ministry requirements, and provides ample space for aircraft


complying with international requirements. I have received no complaint against the flying control system at Croydon. I am sure that the House will wish me to express their heartfelt condolence with the relatives of those who have so unhappily lost their lives.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

Mr. STEWART: Does the right hon. Baronet realise the shock which this tragedy has caused to public opinion and to public safety, and will he undertake to make the most searching inquiry as to what seems to us an inexcusable accident in tragic circumstances?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(The Prime Minister.)

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.

RENUNCIATION OF THE THRONE.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): at the Bar, acquainted the House that he had a Message from His Majesty the King to this House, signed by His Majesty's own hand. And he presented the same to the House, and it was read out by Mr. SPEAKER as followeth, all the Members of the House being uncovered:

Fort Belvedere,

Sunningdalc,

Berkshire.

MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,

After long and anxious consideration, I have determined to renounce the Throne to which I succeeded on the death of My father, and I am now communicating this, My final and irrevocable decision. Realising as I do the gravity of this step, I can only hope that I shall have the understanding of My peoples in the decision I have taken and the reasons which have led Me to take it. I will not enter now into My private feelings, but I would beg that it should be remembered that the burden which constantly rests upon the shoulders of a Sovereign is so heavy that it can only be borne in circumstances different from those in which I now find Myself. I conceive that I am not overlooking the duty that rests on, Me to place in the forefront the public interest, when I declare that I am conscious that I can no longer discharge this heavy task with efficiency or with satisfaction to Myself.

I have accordingly this morning executed an Instrument of Abdication in the terms following: —

"I, Edward VIII, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Emperor of India, do hereby declare My irrevocable determination to renounce the Throne for Myself and for My descendants, and My desire that effect should be given to this Instrument of Abdication immediately.

In token whereof I have hereunto set My hand this tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, in the presence of the witnesses whose signatures are subscribed.

(Signed) EDWARD R.I."

My execution of this Instrument has been witnessed by My three brothers, Their Royal Highnesses the Duke of Pork, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent.

I deeply appreciate the spirit which has actuated the appeals which have been made to Me to take a different decision, and I have, before reaching My final determination, most fully pondered over them. But My mind is made up. Moreover, further delay cannot but be most injurious to the peoples whom I have tried to serve as Prince of Wales and as King and whose future happiness and prosperity are the constant wish of My heart.

I take My leave of them in the confident hope that the course which I have thought it right to follow is that which is best for the stability of the Throne and Empire and the happiness of My peoples. I am deeply sensible of the consideration which they have always extended to Me both before and after My accession to the Throne and which I know they will extend in full measure to My successor.

I am most anxious that there should be no delay of any kind in giving effect to the Instrument which I have executed and that all necessary steps should be taken immediately to secure that My lawful successor, My brother, His Royal Highness the Duke of York, should ascend the Throne.

EDWARD R.I.

3.47 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
That His Majesty's most Gracious Message be now considered.
No more grave message has ever been received by Parliament and no more difficult, I may almost say repugnant, task has ever been imposed upon a Prime Minister. I would ask the House, which I know will not be without sympathy for me in my position to-day, to remember that in this last week I have had but little time in which to compose a speech for delivery to-day, so I must tell what I have to tell truthfully, sincerely and plainly, with no attempt to dress up or to adorn. I shall have little or nothing to say in the way of comment or criticism, or of praise or of blame. I think my best course to-day, and the one that


the House would desire, is to tell them, so far as I can, what has passed between His Majesty and myself and what led up to the present situation.
I should like to say at the start that His Majesty as Prince of Wales has honoured me for many years with a friendship which I value, and I know that he would agree with me in saying to you that it was not only a friendship, but, between man and man, a friendship of affection. I would like to tell the House that when we said "Good-bye" on Tuesday night at Fort Belvedere we both knew and felt and said to each other that that friendship, so far from being impaired by the discussions of this last week, bound us more closely together than ever and would last for life.
Now, Sir, the House will want to know how it was that I had my first interview with His Majesty. I may say that His Majesty has been most generous in allowing me to tell the House the pertinent parts of the discussions which took place between us. As the House is aware, I had been ordered in August and September a complete rest which, owing to the kindness of my staff and the consideration of all my colleagues, I was able to enjoy to the full, and when October came, although I had been ordered to take a rest in that month, I felt that I could not in fairness to my work take a further holiday, and I came, as it were, on halftime before the middle of October, and, for the first time since the beginning of August, was in a position to look into things.
There were two things that disquieted me at that moment. There was coming to my office a vast volume of correspondence, mainly at that time from British subjects and American citizens of British origin in the United States of America, from some of the Dominions and from this country, all expressing perturbation and uneasiness at what was then appearing in the American Press. I was aware also that there was in the near future a divorce case coming on, as a result of which, I realised that possibly a difficult situation might arise later, and I felt that it was essential that someone should see His Majesty and warn him of the difficult situation that might arise later if occasion was given for a continuation of this kind of gossip and of criticism, and the danger that might come

if that gossip and that criticism spread from the other side of the Atlantic to this country. I felt that in the circumstances there was only one man who could speak to him and talk the matter over with him, and that man was the Prime Minister. I felt doubly bound to do it by my duty, as I conceived it, to the country and my duty to him not only as a counsellor, but as a friend. I consulted, I am ashamed to say—and they have forgiven me—none of my colleagues.
I happened to be staying in the neighbourhood of Fort Belvedere about the middle of October, and I ascertained that His Majesty was leaving his house on Sunday, 18th October, to entertain a small shooting party at Sandringham, and that he was leaving on the Sunday afternoon. I telephoned from my friend's house on the Sunday morning and found that he had left earlier than was expected. In those circumstances, I communicated with him through his Secretary and stated that I desired to see him—this is the first and only occasion on which I was the one who asked for an interview—that I desired to see him, that the matter was urgent. I told him what it was. I expressed my willingness to come to Sandringham on Tuesday, the 20th, but I said that I thought it wiser, if His Majesty thought fit, to see me at Fort Belvedere, for I was anxious that no one at that time should know of my visit, and that at any rate our first talk should be in complete privacy. The reply came from His Majesty that he would motor back on the Monday, 19th October, to Fort Belvedere, and he would see me on the Tuesday morning. And on the Tuesday morning I saw him.
Sir, I may say, before I proceed to the details of the conversation, that an adviser to the Crown can be of no possible service to his master unless he tells him at all times the truth as he sees it, whether that truth be welcome or not. And let me say here, as I may say several times before I finish, that during those talks, when I look back, there is nothing I have not told His Majesty of which I felt he ought to be aware—nothing. His Majesty's attitude all through has been—let me put it in this way: Never has he shown any sign of offence, of being hurt at anything I have said to him. The whole of our discussions have been carried out, as I have said, with an increase, if possible,


of that mutual respect and regard in which we stood. I told His Majesty that I had two great anxieties—one the effect of a continuance of the kind of criticism that at that time was proceeding in the American Press, the effect it would have in the Dominions and particularly in Canada, where it was widespread, the effect it, would have in this country.
That was the first anxiety. And then I reminded him of what I had often told him and his brothers in years past. The British Monarchy is a unique institution. The Crown in this country through the centuries has been deprived of many of its prerogatives, but to-day, while that is true, it stands for far more than it ever has done in its history. The importance of its integrity is, beyond all question, far greater than it has ever been, being as it is not only the last link of Empire that is left, but the guarantee in this country so long as it exists in that integrity, against many evils that have affected and afflicted other countries. There is no man in this country, to whatever party he may belong, who would not subscribe to that. But while this feeling largely depends on the respect that has grown up in the last three generations for the Monarchy, it might not take so long, in face of the kind of criticisms to which it was being exposed, to lose that power far more rapidly than it was built up, and once lost I doubt if anything could restore it.
That was the basis of my talk on that aspect, and I expressed my anxiety and desire, that such criticism should not have cause to go on. I said that in my view no popularity in the long run would weigh against the effect of such criticism. I told His Majesty that I for one had looked forward to his reign being a, great reign in a new age—he has so many of the qualities necessary—and that I hoped we should be able to see our hopes realised. I told him I had come—naturally, I was his Prime Minister—but I wanted to talk it over with him as a friend to see if I could help him in this matter. Perhaps I am saying what I should not say here; I have not asked him whether I might say this, but I will say it because I do not think he would mind, and I think it illustrates the basis on which our talks proceeded. He said to me, not once, but many times during those many, many hours we have had

together and especially towards the end, "You and I must settle this matter together; I will not have anyone interfering."
I then pointed out the danger of the divorce proceedings, that if a verdict was given in that case that left the matter in suspense for some time, that period of suspense might be dangerous, because then everyone would be talking, and when once the Press began, as it must begin some time in this country, a most difficult situation would arise for me, for him, and there might well be a danger which both he and I had seen all through this—I shall come to that later—and it was one of the reasons why he wanted to take this action quickly—that is, that there might be sides taken and factions grow up in this country in a matter where no faction ought ever to exist.
It was on that aspect of the question that we talked for an hour, and I went away glad that the ice had been broken, because I knew that it had to be broken. For some little time we had no further meetings. I begged His Majesty to consider all that I had said. I said that I pressed him for no kind of answer, but would he consider everything I had said? The next time I saw him was on Monday, 16th November. That was at Bucking-barn Palace. By that date the decree nisi had been pronounced in the divorce case. His Majesty had sent for me on that occasion. I had meant to see him later in the week, but he had sent for me first. I felt it my duty to begin the conversation, and I spoke to him for a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes on the question of marriage.
Again, we must remember that the Cabinet had not been in this at all—I had reported to about four of my senior colleagues the conversation at Fort Belvedere. I saw the King on Monday, 16th November, and I began by giving him my view of a possible marriage. I told him that I did not think that a particular marriage was one that would receive the approbation of the country. That marriage would have involved the lady becoming Queen. I did tell His Majesty once that I might be a remnant of the old Victorians, but that my worst enemy would not say of me that I did not know what the reaction of the English people


would be to any particular course of action, and I told him that so far as they went I was certain that that would be impracticable. I cannot go further into the details, but that was the substance. I pointed out to him that the position of the King's wife was different from the position of the wife of any other citizen in the country; it was part of the price which the King has to pay. His wife becomes Queen the Queen becomes the Queen of the country; and, therefore, in the choice of a Queen the voice of the people must be heard. It is the truth expressed in those lines that may come to your minds:
His will is not his own;
For he himself is subject to his birth,
He may not, as unvalued persons do,
Carve for himself; for on his choice depends
The safety and the health of the whole State.
Then His Majesty said to me—I have his permission to state this—that he wanted to tell me something that he had long wanted to tell me. He said, "I am going to marry Mrs. Simpson, and I am prepared to go. I said, "Sir, that is most grievous news and it is impossible for me to make any comment on it to-day." He told the Queen that night; he told the Duke of York and the Duke of Gloucester the next day, and the Duke of Kent, who was out of London, either on the Wednesday or the Thursday; and for the rest of the week, so far as I know, he was considering that point.
He sent for me again on Wednesday, 25th November. In the meantime a, suggestion had been made to me that a possible compromise might be arranged to avoid those two possibilities that had been seen, first in the distance and then approaching nearer and nearer. The compromise was that the King should marry, that Parliament should pass an Act enabling the lady to be the King's wife without the position of Queen; and when I saw His Majesty on 25th November he asked me whether that proposition had been put to me, and I said yes. He asked me what I thought of it. I told him that I had not considered it. I said, "I can give you no considered opinion." If he asked me my first reaction informally, my first reaction was

that Parliament would never pass such a Bill. But I said that if he desired it I would examine it formally. He said he did so desire. Then I said, "It will mean my putting that formally before the whole Cabinet and communicating with the Prime Ministers of all the Dominions, and was that his wish?" He told me that it was. I said that I would do it.
On 2nd December the King asked me to go and see him. Again I had intended asking for an audience later that week, because such inquiries as I thought proper to make I had not completed. The inquiries had gone far enough to show that neither in the Dominions nor here would there be any prospect of such legislation being accepted. His Majesty asked me if I could answer his question. I gave him the reply that I was afraid it was impracticable for those reasons. I do want the House to realise this: His Majesty said he was not surprised at that answer. He took my answer with no question and he never recurred to it again. I want the House to realise—because if you can put yourself in His Majesty's place and you know what His Majesty's feelings are, and you know how glad you would have been had this been possible—that he behaved there as a great gentleman; he said no more about it. The matter was closed. I never heard another word about it from him. That decision was, of course, a formal decision, and that was the only formal decision of any kind taken by the Cabinet until I come to the history of yesterday. When we had finished that conversation, I pointed out that the possible alternatives had been narrowed, and that it really had brought him into the position that he would be placed in a grievous situation between two conflicting loyalties in his own heart—either complete abandonment of the project on which his heart was set, and remaining as King, or doing as he intimated to me that he was prepared to do, in the talk which I have reported, going, and later on contracting that marriage, if it were possible. During the last days, from that day until now, that has been the struggle in which His Majesty has been engaged. We had many talks, and always on the various aspects of this limited problem.


The House must remember—it is difficult to realise—that His Majesty is not a boy, although he looks so young. We have all thought of him as our Prince, but he is a mature man, with wide and great experience of life and the world, and he always had before him three, nay, four, things, which in these conversations at all hours, he repeated again and again—That if he went he would go with dignity. He would not allow a situation to arise in which he could not do that. He wanted to go with as little disturbance of his Ministers and his people as possible. He wished to go in circumstances that would make the succession of his brother as little difficult for his brother as possible; and I may say that any idea to him of what might be called a King's party, was abhorrent. He stayed down at Fort Belvedere because he said that he was not coming to London while these things were in dispute, because of the cheering crowds. I honour and respect him for the way in which he behaved at that time.
I have something here which, I think, will touch the House. It is a pencilled note, sent to me by His Majesty this morning, and I have his authority for reading it. It is just scribbled in pencil:
Duke of York. He and the King have always been on the best of terms as brothers, and the King is confident that the Duke deserves and will receive the support of the whole Empire.
I would say a word or two on the King's position. The King cannot speak for himself. The King has told us that he cannot carry, and does not see his way to carry, these almost intolerable burdens of Kingship without a woman at his side, and we know that. This crisis, if I may use the word, has arisen now rather than later from that very frankness of His Majesty's character which is one of his many attractions. It would have been perfectly possible for His Majesty not to have told me of this at the date when he did, and not to have told me for some months to come. But he realised the damage that might be done in the interval by gossip, rumours and talk, and he made that declaration to me when he did, on purpose to avoid what he felt might be dangerous, not only here but throughout the Empire, to the moral force of the Crown which we are all determined to sustain.
He told me his intentions, and he has never wavered from them. I want the House to understand that. He felt it his duty to take into his anxious consideration all the representations that his advisers might give him and not until he had fully considered them did he make public his decision. There has been no kind of conflict in this matter. My efforts during these last days have been directed, as have the efforts of those most closely round him, in trying to help him to make the choice which he has not made; and we have failed. The King has made his decision to take this moment to send this Gracious Message because of his confident hope that by that he will preserve the unity of this country and of the whole Empire, and avoid those factious differences which might so easily have arisen.
It is impossible, unfortunately, to avoid talking to some extent to-day about one's-self. These last days have been days of great strain, but it was a great comfort to me, and I hope it will be to the House, when I was assured before I left him on Tuesday night, by that intimate circle that was with him at the Fort that evening, that I had left nothing undone that I could have done to move him from the decision at which he had arrived, and which he has communicated to us. While there is not a soul among us who will not regret this from the bottom of his heart, there is not a soul here to-day that wants to judge. We are not judges. He has announced his decision. He has told us what he wants us to do, and I think we must close our ranks, and do it.
At a later stage this evening I shall ask leave to bring in the necessary Bill so that it may be read the First time, printed, and made available to Members. It will be available in the Vote Office as soon as the House has ordered the Bill to be printed. The House will meet tomorrow at the usual time, 11 o'clock, when we shall take the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Bill. It is very important that it should be passed into law to-morrow, and I shall put on the Order Paper to-morrow a Motion to take Private Members' time and to suspend the Four o'Clock Rule.
I have only two other things to say. The House will forgive me for saying now something which I should have said a. few minutes ago. I have told them of the circumstances under which I am


speaking, and they have been very generous and sympathetic. Yesterday morning when the Cabinet received the King's final and definite answer officially they passed a Minute, and in accordance with it I sent a message to His Majesty, which he has been good enough to permit me to read to the House, with his reply.
"Mr. Baldwin, with his humble duty to the King.
This morning Mr. Baldwin reported to the Cabinet his interview with Your Majesty yesterday and informed his colleagues that Your Majesty then communicated to him informally Your firm and definite intention to renounce the Throne.
The Cabinet received this statement of Your Majesty's intention with profound regret, and wished Mr. Baldwin to convey to Your Majesty immediately the unanimous feeling of Your Majesty's servants.
Ministers are reluctant to believe that your Majesty's resolve is irrevocable, and still venture to hope that before Your Majesty pronounces any formal decision Your Majesty may be pleased to reconsider an intention which must so deeply distress and so vitally affect all your Majesty's subjects.
Mr. Baldwin is at once communicating with the Dominion Prime Ministers for the purpose of letting them know that Your Majesty has now made to him the informal intimation of Your Majesty's intention.
His Majesty's reply was received last night.
The King has received the Prime Minister's letter of the 9th December, 1936, informing him of the views of the Cabinet.
His Majesty has given the matter his further consideration, but regrets that he is unable to alter his decision.
My last words on that subject are that I am convinced that where I have failed no one could have succeeded. His mind was made up, and those who know His Majesty best will know what that means.
This House to-day is a theatre which is being watched by the whole world. Let us conduct ourselves with that dignity which His Majesty is showing in this hour of his trial. Whatever our regret at the contents of the Message, let us fulfil his wish, do what he asks, and do it with speed. Let no word be spoken to-day that the utterer of That word may regret in days to come, let no word be spoken that causes pain to anti soul, and let us not forget to-day the revered and beloved figure of Queen Mary, what all this time has meant to her, and think of her, when we

have to speak, if speak we must, during this Debate. We have, after all, as welcome the guardians of democracy in this little island to see that we do our work to maintain the integrity of that democracy and of the monarchy, which, as I said at the beginning of my speech is now the sole link of our whole Empire and the guardian of our freedom. Let us look forward and remember our country and the trust reposed by our country in this, the House of Commons, and let us rally behind the new King—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—stand behind him, and help him; and let us hope that, whatever the country may have suffered by what we are passing through, it may soon be repaired and that we may take what steps we can in trying to make this country a better country for all the people in it.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the grave and important Message which has been received from His Majesty, I would ask you whether it would not be desirable to suspend the Sitting of this House till, say, 6 o'clock in order that Members may give it due consideration?

Mr. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, I am prepared to suspend the Sitting until 6 o'clock, and to resume the Chair at that hour.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Sitting suspended accordingly at twenty-seven minutes before five o'clock.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Six o'clock.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: This occasion does not, in my view, call for long and eloquent speeches. My words will be few and simple. We have all heard with profound concern the message from His Majesty the King. The Prime Minister has related to us the course of events that have led up to this momentous act. The King has decided that he can no longer continue on the Throne. The whole country will receive the news with deep sorrow, and his subjects in these Islands and throughout the British Dominions beyond the seas will feel a sense of personal loss. I am certain that, throughout these anxious days, he has had the sympathy of all, in the tragic dilemma with which he has been


faced. That sympathy is due not only to the nature of the issue, involving as it does the strongest human emotions, but to the personal affection which he has inspired in his people. No British Monarch has been so well known by his subjects. The people not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth and the Empire, have seen in him, not a remote Ruler, but a man who was personally acquainted with many of them and had visited the places where they live.
For many years, as the Prince of Wales, he served his country. He shared its joys and sorrows in the dark days of the War and in time of peace. It seems but the other day that he was called upon to take the greater responsibilities of Sovereign over a quarter of the peoples of the world. We all know his personal charm, his courage, and his ready sympathy with suffering. We, on these benches, can never forget how he felt for the miners in their time of trial, and how he showed his deep interest in the unemployed and the people of the distressed areas. Now he has had to make a difficult choice. Powerful personal and human considerations have conflicted with the obligations and responsibilities of his high calling. I am sure that all of us have been trying to think of some way by which this conflict could be resolved. We realised the grave objections to every course, and we hoped it would not come to abdication; but the King has made his decision. He has resolved to abide by it, and we can do no other than accept it.
The wish of all his people will be that he may have a long and happy life. We can all appreciate the strain which these events have placed on the Prime Minister, and he is entitled to our sympathy. The country has received a severe shock. It will take time to recover. The position of anyone who, in these days of pressing problems at home and abroad, is called upon to accept the Throne in these unprecedented circumstances, is obviously one of very great strain. It will be the endeavour of all of us to do what we may to lighten that burden. I would like to express on behalf of myself and my colleagues our deepest sympathy with Queen Mary and the other Members of the Royal Family.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

6.5 p.m.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The whole country and the Empire have been passing through days of stress and tension, and the climax to which events have now marched has aroused in all of us the deepest feelings of grief and frustration. We are bound to our King not only by formal and solemn ties, by our oaths of allegiance and by our recognition of the Crown as the link which unites all the peoples of the Empire, but also by those closer and more personal links which the Leader of the Opposition has so simply and so eloquently described, and which the King has forged between himself and his people—people of all classes, of all creeds and of all races in every part of his Dominions—during nearly a quarter of a century of Royal service. The rupture of those ties is profoundly painful to us all. It must be most painful to those right hon. Gentlemen who, during these brief months of his Reign have been his Ministers and confidential advisers; above all, to the Prime Minister, his closest and most intimate adviser, who deserves our sympathy, and to-day also our gratitude for the grave but clear and moving statement which it was his melancholy duty to make to us this afternoon.
Let us also gratefully and respectfully acclaim the political wisdom which His Majesty has shown in discountenancing any attempt to divide the country on the issues to which his proposed marriage gave rise. It is in large measure due to His Majesty's wise and strong restraint, and to his recognition of the supremacy of Parliament and the constitutional responsibility of Ministers, that the Crown has not become involved in our political controversies, but remains above and aloof from them.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke of the earnestness and the anxiety with which all of us have been exploring the possibility of finding some means by which this conflict could be resolved. The Prime Minister referred to the possibility of a Morganatic Marriage Bill; I think it is only right to tell the House that I could not have supported it. It is not only the law of our country but it is also, I believe, a sound, healthy and essential element in the monarchial principle itself, that the lady whom the King marries


must become Queen and share with him, before the whole people, the glorious burden of sovereignty. Such a Bill would, moreover, under the Statute of Westminster, have had to pass through all the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and the Dominions, before it could have become valid in this country or in any of the Dominions, and the attempt to do so would have involved the Throne in prolonged controversy which would have gravely impaired its prestige and dignity. In my judgment the Government had no option but to reject the proposal.
No man deserves more the generous sympathy and support of the British people at this time than the devoted brother and loyal subject of the present King, whose duty it will be to succeed him on the Throne. He has enjoyed some, but not all, of the opportunities which long tenure of the dignity of Prince of Wales usually affords the Heir to the Throne, of becoming well known to the people of this country; but he has worked hard for many good causes. Thousands of young people who have shared with him the unconventional delights of camp life can testify to his good comradeship and democratic instincts. None will doubt his sincerity and high sense of public duty, and all will welcome to the Throne that gracious lady his wife, who was born a commoner but has won the hearts of the British people by showing a clear and just conception of Royal duty and opportunity in a democratic country.
Grief-stricken as we are to-day, it is our duty to face the future with clear eyes and firm resolve. Any prolongation of the crisis would be fraught with peril. For my own part, I doubt whether under any system of Government a crisis of this gravity could be solved with as little disturbance to the body politic as under our system of constitutional monarchy. This, at any rate, is certain, that the prompt action which the King himself has enjoined upon us will best serve the dignity of the Throne, the reputation of our Parliamentary institutions and the happiness, prosperity and peace of the British people.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Nothing is more certain or more obvious than that recrimination or controversy at this time would be not only useless but harmful and wrong. What is done is done. What

has been done or left undone belongs to history, and to history, so far as I am concerned, it shall be left. I will, therefore, make two observations only. The first is this: It is clear from what we have been told this afternoon that there was at no time any constitutional issue between the King and his Ministers or between the King and Parliament. The supremacy of Parliament over the Crown: the duty of the Sovereign to act in accordance with the advice of his Ministers: neither of those was ever at any moment in question. Supporting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party, I venture to say that no Sovereign has ever conformed more strictly or more faithfully to the letter and spirit of the Constitution than his present Majesty. In fact, he has voluntarily made a sacrifice for the peace and strength of his Realm which goes far beyond the bounds required by the law and the Constitution. That is my first observation.
My second is this: I have, throughout, pleaded for time; anyone can see how grave would have been the evils of protracted controversy. On the other hand, it was, in my view, our duty to endure these evils even at serious inconvenience, if there was any hope that time would bring a solution. Whether there was any hope or not is a mystery which, at the present time, it is impossible to resolve. Time was also important from another point of view. It was essential that there should be no room for aspersions, after the event, that the King had been hurried in his decision. I believe that, if this decision had been taken last week, it could not have been declared that it was an unhurried decision, so far as the King himself was concerned, but now I accept wholeheartedly what the Prime Minister has proved, namely, that the decision taken this week has been taken by His Majesty freely, voluntarily and spontaneously, in his own time and in his own way. As I have been looking at this matter, as is well known, from an angle different from that of most hon. Members, I thought it my duty to place this fact also upon record.
That is all I have to say upon the disputable part of this matter, but I hope the House will bear with me for a minute or two, because it was my duty as Home Secretary, more than a quarter of a century ago, to stand beside his present


Majesty and proclaim his style and titles at his investiture as Prince of Wales amid the sunlit battlements of Carnarvon Castle, and ever since then he has honoured me here, and also in war-time, with his personal kindness and, I may even say, friendship. I should have been ashamed if, in my independent and unofficial position, I had not cast about for every lawful means, even the most forlorn, to keep him on the Throne of his fathers, to which he only recently succeeded amid the hopes and prayers of all. In this Prince there were discerned qualities of courage, of simplicity, of sympathy, and, above all, of sincerity, qualities rare and precious which might have made his reign glorious in the annals of this ancient monarchy. It is the acme of tragedy that these very virtues should, in the private sphere, have led only to this melancholy and bitter conclusion. But, although our hopes to-day are withered, still I will assert that his personality will not go down uncherished to future ages, that it will be particularly remembered in the homes of his poorer subjects, and that they will ever wish from the bottom of their hearts for his private peace and happiness and for the happiness of those who are dear to him.
I must say one word more, and I say it specially to those here and out of doors—and do not underrate their numbers—who are most poignantly afflicted by what has occurred. Danger gathers upon our path. We cannot afford—we have no right—to look back. We must look forward; we must obey the exhortation of the Prime Minister to look forward. The stronger the advocate of monarchical principle a man may be, the more zealously must he now endeavour to fortify the Throne and to give to His Majesty's successor that strength which can only come from the love of a united nation and Empire.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to say a few words on this unprecedented situation in which the House of Commons finds itself to-day, and I realise that I am speaking in a House in which an overwhelming proportion of the membership is under feelings of very strong emotion. I respect these emotions, although I do not entirely share them. The monarchical in-

stitutions of this land date back to very early times, and by many are regarded as sacrosanct and everlasting. I share with others in this House the human sympathies that go out to His Majesty as a man confronted with the difficulties with which he as a man has been confronted in these recent weeks. I share the same human sympathies with the Prime Minister, who has had to shoulder a task which few if any of the occupants of his office have ever had to shoulder before, and, in the nature of the case, has had to shoulder it alone. The decisions that he has made are, I believe, in strict accordance with his Conservative principles, on which he has been chosen as the leader of this country in the House of Commons, and, therefore, I make no criticism of them whatever. But I do say that, in the very nature of the monarchical institutions on an hereditary basis, circumstances of this kind were bound to arise, and they have arisen now in conditions which have created very grave difficulties for this country and for the Empire over the seas.
It is a question whether now this House will not be prepared to look at this particular political problem that has been forced upon our attention to-day as a practical political problem, one among many that intelligent men in the twentieth century must confront, recognising that the problems of our age cannot be met and solved with the ideas and the institutions which have come down to us from earlier times. We are living in a new kind of world, with new kinds of problems, and the institutions that date back centuries, however much reverence they may inspire because of their ancient origin and the traditions and associations that have become attached to them over the centuries, are not necessarily the institutions which can cope with the problems of modern times. We therefore intend, however it may be against the general run of opinion in this House, to take strongly the view that the lesson of the past few days, and of this day in particular, is that the monarchical institution has now outlived its usefulness. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The happenings of the past few days have only indicated the grave perils that confront a country that has as its centralising, unifying figure an hereditary personality who at any time may break under the force


of the circumstances that gather round about him. We hope to take the opportunity given us, when steps are being taken to make good the evil and injury that have already been done to try to persuade this House now to face the situation with the idea in their minds that for the future Great Britain and its allied countries across the seas shall become, among other advanced countries in the world, one of the republican nations.

6.24 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I put a Motion on the Paper, and I do not regret it; but, after the sincere and admirable speech of the Prime Minister, that Motion is dead. I could have wished that the King had been allowed to live here married, happy, and King, but he has wished otherwise. A thousand years hence, perhaps, we shall be liberal enough to allow such a thing; it is too early now. He has been very kind to me and to a great many people throughout this Empire personally known to him, and I think we may all wish him a happy life there, if not here. The right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear that, in spite of what I wished, and many others wished, there were really only two alternatives—to continue lonely, disappointed, bitter, ruling the Empire, or else to do what he has done, to throw up royalty and remain a man. We shall all commend him for that choice of the two, for nothing could have been worse than a Kingdom ruled by a man with a grievance, partly hostile to every Minister who had put him in the dilemma—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—collecting round him false friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—collecting round him those who would use the King's feelings against the Ministry and against the Constitution. That would be an alternative which everyone must have seen ahead of us, the most dreadful alternative. Tomorrow we shall take a new Oath of Allegiance. There will be no non-jurors this time, because it is by the King's wish that we take it. There will be no non-jurors below the Gangway, no non-jurors throughout the country. There will be, I would say, millions of people with aching hearts. They will carry on for England. They will take that oath because he wished it, and, if they sometimes raise their glass to the King across the water, who shall blame them?

6.29 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I would like just to remark that the concluding sentence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) happened to be the first note that I have in my hand. Danger lies before us, and it is going to be very bad if we close our eyes to that fact. It is very nice to hear right hon. Members talking about the necessity for all standing together, but how was it possible that such a crisis as has arisen should come upon us? The King and Mrs. Simpson do not live in a vacuum. Sinister processes are continually at work.
I would direct your attention to the fact that the Prime Minister told us that he was approached about a morganatic marriage, but he did not tell us who approached him. He told us that, when he went to the King later, the King asked him if he had been approached on this matter. It is obvious that forces were operating, advising and encouraging what was going on. It is a year since I heard about Mrs. Simpson. Perhaps it is the same with other Members. No one paid very much attention to Mrs. Simpson or to what she was doing until more and more difficulties arose in Europe, and then there was a move for a decree nisi. This is not something decided on by the King and Mrs. Simpson on her own. I want to make it understood, if I possibly can, that we have here not an issue between the King and Parliament, for Parliament has never been consulted from beginning to end—interviews, secret and otherwise, but Parliament not consulted and the forces operating, two forces fighting with one another on this issue, as they have been fighting continually on every important issue that has come on foreign policy. I am concerned with the working class. I see terrible dangers arising. There is not an hon. Member here who, if he asks himself the question, believes that this finishes the crisis and that the forces which have been operating behind this will now stop. There is victory for one group at the moment, but they will not stop. The forces will go on.
I want to draw attention to the fact that Mrs. Simpson has a social set, and every Member of the Cabinet knows that the social set of Mrs. Simpson is closely identified with a certain foreign Government and the Ambassador of that foreign


Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is common knowledge, and round about this issue is the issue that is continually arising when other Debates come on. I say it is not an issue between the King and Parliament. It is an issue between two groups which are fighting continually for domination, and it is a thousand pities that the Labour movement should show any signs of falling into the trap. The only hope for the working class is that the Labour Movement should adopt an independent policy and pursue it against these groups, accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and finish with it all. No one can go out before the people of the country and give any justification for clinging to the Monarchy. You all know it. You will not be able, no matter what you do, to repair the damage that has been done to the Monarchical institution. If you allow things to go on as they are going, you will encourage factions to grow, and factions will grow, of a dangerous and desperate character, so far as the mass of the people are concerned. I appeal to the Labour movement to take strong, determined action to arouse the people of the country to the urgent need of uniting all their forces for peace and progress in face of the dangers that lie in their path—the very terrible dangers that are bound to confront us in the very near future.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I feel that I ought to express my own view and go a step farther than my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I should not be honest if I did not do so. I have listened to more cant and humbug than I have ever listened to in my life. I have heard praise of the King which was not felt sincerely in any quarter of the House. I go further. Who has not heard the tittle-tattle and gossip that is going about? If he had not voluntarily stepped from the Throne, everyone knows that the same people in the House who pay lip service to him would have poured out scorn, abuse and filth. Some months ago we opposed the Civil List. To-morrow we shall take the same line. I have no doubt that you will go on praising the next King as you have praised this one. You will go on telling about his wonderful

qualities. If he is a tenth as good as you say, why are you not keeping him? Why is everyone wanting to unload him? Because you know he is a weak creature. You want to get rid of him and you are taking the step to-day.
The great tragedy of it is this: If an ordinary workman had been in this mess, everyone in the House of Commons would have been ashamed of him. You would have refused him benefit. You would have ill-treated him. Look. at the Minister of Labour sneering at collusive action. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Everyone knows it. The whole Law Courts were set at defiance for this man. A divorce case was taken when everyone of you knows it was a breaking of the law. What are you talking nonsense about? The law is desecrated. The law courts are thrust aside. There is an association which everyone of you knows is collusive action. If a little boy in Wales leaves his mother to get 7s. extra, he has to stand the jeers and taunts of a miserable Minister of Labour. Talk to me about fairness, about decency, about equality! You are setting aside your laws for a rich, pampered Royalty. The next set will be pampered too. You will lie and praise them and try to laud them above ordinary men. Instead of having the ordinary frailties that all of us have, they will have this additional one, of being surrounded with a set of flunkeys who refuse to let them know the truth as others do. To-morrow I will willingly take the step of going out and saying it is time the people ceased to trust those folk, but only trusted their own power and their own elected authority.

6.39 p.m.

Captain Sir IAN FRASER: I feel sure that the House and the country will feel that any degree to which we can contribute towards avoiding controversy will be for the good of the Realm. I only want to say two things, not in any representative capacity but as an old soldier. No group in the community enjoys to a greater degree the understanding, the sympathy and the good will of His Majesty than ex-Service men. I am certain that they will feel not merely that they have lost one who has worked for them for a quarter of a century, but a personal friend. But no group has a deeper sense of the importance of stability and strength at difficult times.


I feel certain that their loyalty to the Crown and their help to the new King will be unbounded and will be given in the greatest possible measure that lies in their power.

Question, "That His Majesty's most Gracious Message be now considered," put, and agreed to.

HIS MAJESTY'S DECLARATION OF BDICATION.

Motion made, and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give effect to His Majesty's declaration of abdication; and for purposes connected therewith," put, and agreed to.—[The Prime Minister.]

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secre-

tary Sir John Simon, Mr. Secretary Malcolm MacDonald, Mr. Secretary Elliot, Mr. Secretary Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Butler.

HIS MAJESTY'S DECLARATION OF ABDICATION BILL,

"to give effect to His Majesty's declaration of abdication; and for purposes connected therewith"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 48.]

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes before Seven o' Clock.